Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

This article is a continuation of Tools, part 1, in a series meant to introduce readers to useful tools for editing. This time, we will be treating tools related to internal links (wikilinks), and the version histories of wiki pages.

Many tools consist of user scripts, JavaScript code running in your browser, that can be imported by adding importScript("User:Example/awesome script.js") to your skin.js page. Compatibility varies with skin and browser, with Internet Explorer being the most problematic. A more extensive script list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts.

Various other tools are hosted on the Wikimedia Toolserver (currently provided by the German Wikimedia chapter) and can be accessed via a web interface. Some are also hosted on non-Wikimedia websites.

Dabfinder adds a "Find disambiguations" link to your sidebar, outlines disambiguation links in green and allowing you to fix them on the fly without having to go to a separate page. Unlike Begriffsklärungs-Check ("disambiguation check") from the German Wikipedia, it works on all languages.

Author : Splarka

Placement : Adds a "Find disambiguations" link to the Toolbox sidebar.

Demo : Paste javascript:importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js');findDABsButton() into your browser's address bar while viewing or previewing the article of interest.

Installation : Add {{subst:js|User:Splarka/dabfinder.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page.

Dablinks is a Toolserver tool which checks for disambiguation links. It can check individual pages or up to 500 pages from a category, list, or a user's recent contributions. A companion tool, accessible via "(fix links)", Dab solver provides an easy to use menu driven interface for resolving all links. The tools also collects statistics to assist WikiProject Disambiguation.

Author : Dispenser

Linkclassifier assigns over a dozen possible attributes to links. Users can opt to use either the default style sheet or create their own with the looks and color they want for each attribute. The default highlights disambiguation and self-redirects links and outlines non-free images. What sets this tool apart from others is the ability to identify Set index articles. While there is no firm standard, they are typically hybrids between a list article and a disambiguation page. Writers may intentionally link to these if they wish to have a description or history of a Ship's name, for example.

Author : Anomie

Placement : Highlights are inline, configurable to page load (default) or button click.

Demo : Paste javascript:void(importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier-demo.js')) into your browser's address bar while viewing or previewing the article of interest.

Installation : Add both {{subst:js|User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js}} and importStylesheet('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'); to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page.

The Contributors tool lists users who have edited a page, based on the number of their contributions. This is a good way to identify the major contributors to an article. The tool can also display the page history in other formats. (Documentation)

Author : Duesentrieb

Article revision statistics by X! also shows users who have edited a particular page, sorted by number of edits; but it provides many other statistics about the page's history, such as the number of edits per month, or the percentage of anonymous edits.

Author: X!

WikiDashboard displays an article together with a timeline showing editing activity, and also lists the contributors with the most edits to the article. Editing while using the dashboard is not possible. It was the subject of an article in Technology Review last year; see also the Signpost coverage of its release in 2007.

Author : Palo Alto Research Center

Revisionjumper allows easier navigation of a page's history, generating diffs between arbitrary revisions or time periods with just a few clicks. It was developed on the German Wikipedia and is used by around 1500 users.

Author: DerHexer

Demo : Try it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox

Placement : Adds drop-downs between the revision info and the revision diff

Installation: Add {{subst:js|MediaWiki:Gadget-revisionjumper.js}} to your Special:MyPage/skin.js page, or go to Special:Preferences, check its box under "Gadgets", and click "Save".

WikiBlame (documentation) searches revisions of a page for a text string in either the HTML or wikitext. It then displays the revision dates where the string exists or does not by a green circle and red X. This is useful if one needs to ask the author of a particular statement for a clarification or a reference, and is certainly faster than doing it by hand. Article Blamer by X! promises similar functionality in a streamlined interface. WikiTrust (see below) is another alternative.

Author: Flominator

Placement: The tool is linked as "Revision history search" from the History pages on the English Wikipedia.

WikiTrust analyzes an article's history and the contributions of its authors to calculate a trust score for each part of the text, which is displayed as a color (white=trustworthy, yellow or orange = unstable). It is also possible to check directly who contributed that part: A CTRL-ALT-click on a word will take you to the diff where it was added.

WikiTrust is currently available as a browser add-on for Firefox. The Wikimedia Foundation has indicated that it may eventually be integrated into Wikipedia itself (see Signpost coverage).

Author: Online Collaboration Lab at the University of California, Santa Cruz

Placement: Adds a "WikiTrust" tab on top of the page

Page view statistics graphs the number of views per day for a Wikipedia page. The tool aggregates a list of the "most viewed pages", although this is often several months behind. The data is also used in a new, still experimental tool by Emw that graphs over larger periods.

Note: Due to past problems with the underlying data (squid logs), page views may be under-reported from November 2009 to July 2010.

Author: Henrik

Placement: The tool is linked as "Page view statistics" from the History pages on the English Wikipedia.

← Previous "Dispatches"

Next "Dispatches" →

In this issue

20 September 2010 (all comments)

From the editor

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Dispatches

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Wikihistory

Another page history tool that wasn't mentioned in the article but is also very useful is de:Benutzer:APPER/WikiHistory, a downloadable (and closed source) program that runs under Windows. The documentation is entirely in German, which was a reason not include it here, but the program itself is in English and can be applied to pages on many different Wikipedias including the English one, and Commons. Apart from a "blame" function, it can color an article's text according to which editor contributed it, meaning one gets a direct overview of all text authored by a particular user. The German Wikipedia fork "Wikiweise" offers such a coloring function directly on their site (accessible by the "Einfärben" link next to each article, example). IIrc, this was based on an earlier version of APPER's code.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost articles about tools

I'm concerned this is becoming too much. 3 whole articles of tools gives a very, very nagging feeling that we are getting seriously out of scope-especially considering it was originally one. ResMar 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a software review should be a regular feature on the Signpost - a entire article devoted to one tool in each issue. An article devoted to policy discussions would be good too but I'm afraid I'm not volunteering to write either of these. filceolaire (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the wastebin of ideas =) ResMar 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concept is terrific, implementation could be improved. I'd prefer: Tool of the Week. Tools are incredibly useful, and in many situations separate effective from ineffective editors. At the least, they separate newcomers from old hands. Try doing recent changes patrol without Twinkle (or Huggle), or checking diffs without pop-ups, or fixing syntax without Auto-Ed. It's possible, but why would you want to? Let's keep bringing attention to the important but undercovered ideas, just do it in a less haphazard fashion. Ocaasi 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "haphazard fashion"? The first two parts already represent the result of quite some effort to bring into a more systematic form what was initially, in the view of some commenters, a too arbitrary selection. This was done by grouping the tools into topics, and striving for some level of completeness regarding each topic (i.e. try to cover at least the important, widely used tools related to each topic). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haphazard wasn't about it being messy or chaotic, just about the inherent randomness of tools. I appreciate the general effort as well as the specific intentions to group things better. What I mean is that tools are such an important but niche item, that they might be best categorized individually or broken down by very specific themes (like anti-vandalism, citations, User Interface, templates, etc.). It might be best for readers if only one tool, or two or three from a single category were presented each week. Once you have more than that I think it takes on what I meant by haphazard, which is a bit of a hodge-podge quality, since you have a collection of new, technical things which are interesting but maybe overwhelming when grouped together. Is that a better explanation? Ocaasi (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for specific themes, well that's what we tried here - the "citations" idea has already been realized in the first issue (as "References"). "User interface", on the other hand, seems very general.

I think that most tools don't warrant a separate article. And grouping should actually help to make things easier to read (example in this article: The reader only has to grasp once what a "blame" functionality is, in order to understand the description of several tools providing it). Of course there can always be debate about the relevance of a particular tool for Signpost readers, but I think it's good to strive for a certain completeness regarding each topic, in the sense that at least all widely used or highly recommendable tools regarding that "very specific theme" are covered.

You are welcome to comment on the (draft of the) next installment, which will likely be postponed until next week: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-11/Dispatches.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be getting beyond the viewers at this point, so to clarify:

• This was only (only!) intended to showcase tools useful to article writing. Please strive to understand that. Whatever else you want to do is separate. ResMar 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is understood that your personal intentions may have been different in the beginning, but do I really need to remind you of the huge concerns and lengthy controversies that they generated? The scope and form were changed to bring it into a form acceptable for publishing. Even in this second part, several quality problems stemming from the initial text (such as a completely wrong name for one tool) had to be fixed before publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah calling a Banan-a a Banana is soooo wrong. >.> ResMar 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]